0 Up votes0 Down votes

201 views6 pagesNov 01, 2010

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

201 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Notes on Stochastic Finance-Nicolas Privaut
- Determinants of Option Pricing
- Commodity trading
- General FeedbackMN3113
- Bond Valuation Written Report
- All Slides
- FinancialDerivatives_063009
- Numerical Methods for the Valuation of Financial Derivatives.pdf
- Comparison of Stock Markets.
- THE VALUATION OF BONDS AND BOND OPTIONS: SOME EMPIRICAL TESTS
- 02b_risk_neutral_valuation_the_black-scholes_model_and_monte_carlo.pdf
- SOA Exam MFE Flash Cards for Upload
- VolatilityDynamics_DNicolay_PrePrint
- Inflation and Gold Part 3
- 19680525-Options
- International Finance Group 10 Derivatives
- Monte Carlo Simulation for Data Volatility Analysis of Stock Prices in Islamic Finance for Malaysia Composite Index
- Euro Dollar Futures and Options Hjm
- 1-Zucco.ppt
- Translation From Al-Mukhtar Lesson 2

You are on page 1of 6

Current developments in exotic interest rate products push the demand for more sophisticated

interest rate models. Here, Jesper Andreasen presents a new class of stochastic volatility multi-

factor yield curve models enabling quick calibration and efficient Monte Carlo simulation

I

n the early 1990s, Cheyette (1992) and others introduced a separable

volatility specification of the general Heath-Jarrow-Morton (HJM, 1992) and a matrix process h on Rk × k, so that:

σ (t , T )′ = g (T )′ h (t )

model. Contrary to general HJM and Libor market models, this specifi-

(2)

cation allows for Markov representation of the full yield curve in a low

number of state variables. In this article, we present a class of separable then a Markov representation of the dynamics of the yield curve, involv-

volatility structure yield curve models that incorporates stochastic volatili- ing k + k × (k + 1)/2 state variables, emerges.

ty to match the volatility smile as observed in the vanilla interest rate op- Without loss of generality, the model can in this case be formulated as:

tions markets. We combine this with recent ideas for approximation of

stochastic volatility models with time-dependent parameters by Piterbarg ( )

dX (t ) = Y (t ) ι − I κ (t ) X (t ) dt + η (t ) dW (t ) , X (0) = 0

(2005a-b) to yield a fast and efficient calibration of the model.

The first sections of the article consider separable volatility structures dY (t ) = η (t ) η (t )′ − I κ (t )Y (t ) − Y (t ) I κ (t ) dt , Y (0) = 0

in HJM models and stochastic volatility models for vanilla swaptions and

P (0, T ) − G (t ,T )′ X (t ) − 12 G (t ,T )′ Y (t )G (t ,T )

caps. We then introduce our model specification and describe how cap P (t , T ) = e

and swaption prices can be approximated in the model. Calibration tech- P (0, t )

niques and numerical examples are considered. The final sections of the

− T κ (u )du − κ (u ) du

T ′

G (t , T ) = ∫ g (t , s ) ds, g (t , T ) = e ∫t 1 ,..., e ∫t k

article consider pricing in our model by Monte Carlo simulations and the T

If P(t, T) denotes the time t price of a zero-coupon bond maturing at time Y , η ∈ k × k , I a = diag ( a1,…, ak ) ∈ k × k

T, the time t continuously compounded forward rate for deposits over the

interval [T, T + dT] is given by: In the context of the separable formulation (2) we have:

∂ ln P (t , T ) g (T ) = g (0, T ) , h (t ) = I g−(1t ) η (t )

f (t , T ) = −

∂T The first k state variables, the elements of X, can be interpreted as yield

Heath, Jarrow & Morton (1992) show that any arbitrage-free term structure curve factors that pertubate the forward curve and are directly associated

model with continuous evolution of the yield curve has to satisfy: with the driving Brownian motions, whereas the remaining k × (k + 1)/2

state variables, the elements of the symmetric matrix Y, can be seen as ‘con-

df (t , T ) = σ (t , T )′

T

(1) vexity’ terms that have to be carried along to keep the model arbitrage free.

t

For k = 1 and η deterministic, Y becomes deterministic and we obtain

where W is a vector Brownian motion under the risk-neutral measure and the general Gaussian model, that is, a Vasicek (1977) model with time-de-

{σ(t, T)}t ≤ T is a family of vector processes. pendent parameters. This led Jamshidian (1991) and Babbs (1993) to de-

The HJM approach prescribes a very straightforward way of specifying note the separable volatility specification as, respectively, ‘quasi’ and

an arbitrage-free term structure model that automatically fits the initial term ‘pseudo’ Gaussian models.

structure: all one needs to do is to specify the forward rate volatility struc- The potential computational saving in using this type of model rather

ture {σ(t, T)}t ≤ T. than the general HJM approach is considerable. For example, if we con-

However, the problem with this modelling approach is that the re- sider the case of pricing a 30-year structure with quarterly fixings and pay-

sulting model is not generally Markovian in a limited number of state vari- ments by simulation, the general HJM or Libor market model (LMM)

ables. In general, the HJM model approach requires us to use the full approach will require the evolution of at least 120 points on the yield curve,

forward curve as a state variable to close (1) as a Markov system. This is whereas a four-factor version of the separable model requires the evolu-

independent of the dimension of the driving Brownian motion and it is tion of a maximum of 14 state variables.

even the case if the forward rate volatility structure is deterministic. So For the one-dimensional case, k = 1, a finite difference solution is vi-

when we simulate the model (1) we generally need to carry forward all able and is most often a more efficient numerical solution method than

points on the forward curve. Hence, the computational effort of simula- Monte Carlo simulation. We will discuss this later. Finite difference solu-

tion of the model (1) grows at a quadratic rate in the time horizon. Sim- tion of simpler versions of the model are also considered in Andreasen

ilarly, if we attempt to approximate the process (1) with a discrete process, (2000) and Andersen & Andreasen (2002).

the resulting tree will be non-recombining and thus have a number of It is worth noting that if we let κ1, ... , κk be constants, then:

nodes that grow at an exponential rate in the number of time steps, or k

the time horizon. σ (t , t + τ )′ = ∑ e − κ i τ ηi (t ) → ∫ e − κτ ηκ (t ) d κ

However, Cheyette (1992), Babbs (1993), Jamshidian (1991) and i =1

Ritchken & Sankarasubramaniam (1993) independently find that if we re- for k → ∞ and an appropriately chosen sequence κ1, κ2, .... So the model

strict ourselves to a volatility structure for the forward rates that are sepa- (3) can be seen as a representation of the forward rate volatility structure

on a (discrete) basis of exponential functions. The function κ |→ ηκ(t) can A. Skew and smile parameters fitted to euro

thus be viewed as the inverse Laplace transform of the forward rate volatil- cap and swaption prices

ity structure in the tenor dimension: t |→ σ(t, t + τ).

m 6m 1y 2y 5y 10y 15y 20y 30y

Stochastic volatility processes 6m 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.50 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.29

The most popular stochastic volatility model for caps and swaptions appears 1y 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.27

to be the SABR model by Hagan et al (2002) where the volatility is specified 3y 0.68 0.58 0.49 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.22

as a geometric Brownian motion that has some correlation with the under- 5y 0.65 0.52 0.43 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.17

10y 0.58 0.45 0.38 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.14

lying forward swap rate. This model is quite difficult to work with in the

15y 0.48 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.13

context of full yield curve models, for a number of reasons. ε 6m 1y 2y 5y 10y 15y 20y 30y

First, the SABR model does not incorporate mean-reversion in volatili- 6m 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.18 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.27

ty, which means that when the model is fitted to observed cap and swap- 1y 1.15 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.11 1.14 1.13 1.12

tion prices the implied volatility of volatility parameter most often turns 3y 1.05 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.93

out to be decreasing with the expiry of the underlying option. This in turn 5y 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85

implies that a full dynamic version of the SABR model would have to ex- 10y 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83

15y 1.03 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.89

hibit even steeper decreasing forward volatility of volatility. Second, in

many implementations of the SABR model the correlation between volatil- Note: this table reports best fit m and ε parameters to observed cap and

ity and underlying rate are quite different for different expiries and tenors. swaption prices for β = 0.05. Expiries are in the rows and tenors are in the

Non-zero correlation is technically quite difficult to handle in a full yield columns. The currency is the euro and the parameters were estimated

curve model and potentially time-varying correlation is of course even from Totem consensus prices for the end of a particular month in 2004

more complicated. Third, as the SABR model has no closed-form for Eu-

ropean-style option prices, it is typically implemented for European op-

tion pricing by expansion techniques whose accuracy deteriorates for 1. This and last month’s models against

longer expiries. This may have limited practical importance if the SABR Totem quotes

model is only used for European-style option pricing, but our scope is to

price general path-dependent instruments, so we need our European-style 1.0

option pricing to be consistent with the actual specified dynamics. mdl(t – 1m)

0.8 mdl(t)

Instead we follow Andersen & Andreasen (2002) and use the following

model as our basis for developing a full yield curve model with stochas- 0.6

tic volatility: 0.4

dS (t ) = λ z (t ) mS (t ) + (1 − m ) S (0) dW1A (t ) 0.2

( )

dz (t ) = β 1 − z (t ) dt + ε z (t ) dW2A (t )

%

0.0

(4) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

–0.2

dW1AdW2A =0

–0.4

where WA is a Brownian motion under annuity measure, that is, the mar-

tingale measure with the annuity: –0.6

n –0.8

A (t ) = ∑ δ i P (t , ti )

i =1 –1.0

δi = ti – ti – 1 is the day count fraction, S(t) = (P(t, t0) – P(t, tn))/A(t) is the for- This figure shows the deviations from Totem consensus quotes for

ward par swap rate under consideration, and all the parameters λ, m, ε, β euro swaptions in terms of implied Black volatility for two models. One

that had its m, ε parameters fitted the month before the other had its

are constants. The swap rate is a martingale under the annuity measure.

parameters fitted this month. Expiries range from six months to 20

In terms of the implied Black-Scholes volatility smile, the level is con- years, tenors from one year to 30 years, and strikes from 5% to 95%

trolled by λ. As correlation between the swap rate and the volatility is as- in Black-Scholes delta terms – all in all, 912 swaptions. All data is as

sumed to be zero, the slope of the smile is fully controlled by the m of a particular end of month in 2004

parameter. The smile becomes increasingly negatively sloped as m is de-

creased. Subnormal skews, corresponding to m < 0, are possible with the

note of caution that S is restricted from above by 1 m– m S(0) when m is neg- In our experience, the implied skew and smile parameters m and ε are

ative. Increasing the volatility of local variance, ε, increases the curvature quite stable over time, so in practice only the volatility level parameter λ

of the smile. Increasing the speed of mean-reversion, β, increases the rate needs to be updated on a regular basis, say daily or weekly. To illustrate

at which the curvature of the smile decays with expiry. this, figure 1 shows the deviations in terms of implied Black volatility from

The model is essentially a ‘shifted’ Heston (1993) model, so it allows end-of-month Totem1 consensus quotes for euro swaptions for strikes rang-

for an analytic solution based on numerical inversion of the Fourier trans- ing from 5–95% delta, for two different models (4). The first model had its

form. Lipton (2002) and Lewis (2000) give representations of the option m and ε grids fitted the month before whereas the second was fitted on

price that avoid the numerical instability of the representation in the orig- the particular date. In both cases we set the λ so that the model fits the at-

inal Heston (1993) paper. the-money Totem levels. Expiries range from six months to 20 years and

This model gives a good fit to observed cap and swaption prices with tenors from one year to 30 years. In total, 912 swaptions were priced. We

reasonably stable parameters across expiries and tenors. An example of see that both models for the most part agree with the Totem consensus

the fitted m, ε parameters is given in table A. We note that the model’s quotes within +/–0.25% in Black-Scholes implied volatility for all strikes.

volatility of variance parameter, ε, is related to lognormal volatility of volatil- Figure 2 gives a further indication of the stability of the skew and smile

ity by the approximate relation: parameters of the model by showing the evolution of monthly calibrated

1

lognormal volatility of volatility ≈ ε / 2 Totem provides independent mark verification services for interbank options based on

mid-market quotes from approximately 20 leading option dealers

Cutting edge l Interest rates

2. Time-series evolution of calibrated m, ε Here the matrix product RR′ is the instantaneous correlation matrix for the

parameters k forward rates.

Under the separable volatility specification in (3), we have:

dF (t ) = Γ (t ) η (t ) dW (t ) + O(dt )

1.0

′

0.8 g (t , t + τ )

Γ (t ) = ∈ k ×k (7)

g (t , t + τ k )

0.6 ′

m

Legend?

0.2

( )

Γ (t ) η (t ) = z (t ) I M (t ) I F (t ) + I − I M (t ) I F (0) I λ (t ) R (t )

⇓

0 (7a)

–0.2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 −1

( )

η (t ) = z (t )Γ (t ) I M (t ) I F (t ) + I − I M (t ) I F (0) I λ (t ) R (t )

This figure shows the evolution of the monthly calibrated 10-year by with:

10-year skew and smile parameters m, ε over the period 2003–05.

The currency is the euro ( )

dz (t ) = β 1 − z (t ) dt + ε (t ) z (t )dZ (t ) , dZdW = 0 (7b)

The volatility specification (7) in combination with (3) defines our model.

In most cases we choose constant κ1, ... , κk as well as a constant cor-

m and ε for the 10-year × 10-year euro swaption over 2003–05. Though relation structure RR′. The latter is typically estimated from the historical

the implied skew parameter m increases over the period, the implied volatil- time-series data of the yield curve. In this case, the model parameters that

ity of variance ε is more or less constant over the period and both time se- need to be set by calibration to swaption and cap prices are:

ries exhibit low volatility. ■ The forward rate volatility structure, λ for all times t and the tenors

τ1, ... , τk.

Model specification ■ The forward rate skew structure, m for all times t and the tenors

Andersen & Andreasen (2002) suggest a Libor market model with stochastic τ1, ... , τk.

volatility, which is extended by Piterbarg (2003) to allow for a time- and ■ The forward volatility of volatility, ε for all times t.

tenor-dependent local volatility skew parameter. The motivation for this is In terms of the implied Black-Scholes volatility smiles for swaptions and

that if we consider implied parameters of the model (4), as in table A, we caplets, the first parameter controls the absolute level, the second the slope

typically see that the skew parameter m is fairly constant across expiry but (skew) and the third the curvature (smile).

it tends to decrease with tenor. On the other hand, the implied ε parame- We see that the model, at least in principle, can exactly fit the volatili-

ter appears to be fairly constant across both expiry as well as tenor, at least ty level and slope for all expiries along k tenors, whereas the curvature

for expiries over one year. can only be fitted exactly for one tenor. In practice, though, our calibra-

If we use continuously compounded rates rather than discrete rates as tion will most often be on a best fit basis.

model primitives, the Piterbarg model can be formulated as: For the one-factor case, k = 1, we do, however, often choose to go for

( )

an exact fit to a specific strip of swaptions or caplets. In this case we often

df (t , T ) = z (t , T ) m (t , T ) f (t ) + 1 − m (t , T ) f (0, T ) specify the model a bit differently, namely:

× λ (t , T ) ρ (t , T )′ dW (t ) + O ( dt ) ( )

η (t ) = z (t ) m (t ) S (t ) + 1 − m (t ) S (0) λ (t ) (8)

( ( ))

dz (t ) = β 1 − z 1 − z (t ) dt + z (t )ε (t ) dZ (t ) where λ, m are now scalar functions of time and S is a par swap rate re-

ferring to different swap periods over the time horizon. For example, if we

λ (t , T ) ∈ , ρ ( t , T ) ∈ k , ρ ( t , T ) = 1 (5)

choose to fit the model to the strip of 1×29, 2×28, … , 29×1 swaption

Z (t ) ∈ , dZ (t ) dW (t ) = 0 smiles, we let S be the 1×29 par swap rate for times between year zero

and one, 2×28 par swap rate for times between year one and two, up to

where m, λ and ρ are deterministic functions of time and maturity, ε is 29×1 par swap rate for times between year 28 and 29.

a deterministic function of time and β is a constant. We note that m = 0

corresponds to a normal model whereas m = 1 corresponds to a log- Swaption pricing

normal model. For efficient calibration of the model, closed-form pricing of caps and swap-

Fix k tenors τ1, ... , τk. For the corresponding forward rates we have: tions is essential. In this section, we describe an accurate (near) closed-

form approximation.

( )

dF (t ) = z (t ) I M (t ) I F (t ) + I − I M (t ) I F (0) I λ (t ) R (t ) dW (t ) + O ( dt )

Using Itô’s lemma and the fact that the swap rate S is a martingale under

the annuity measure, we get:

( )

F (t ) = f (t , t + τ1 ) ,…, f (t , t + τ n ) ′ ∈ k dS (t ) = S (t )′ η (t ) dW A (t )

X (9)

M (t ) = ( m (t , t + τ ) ,…, m (t , t + τ ))′ ∈

1 n

k where we let subscripts denote partial derivatives, that is, SX = (∂S/∂X1, ...

, ∂S/∂Xk). Given fixed mean-reversion coefficients κ1, ... , κk this derivative

I ( ) = Diag (λ (t , t + τ ) ,…, λ (t , t + τ )) ∈

λt 1 n

k ×k

can be calculated in closed form by combining (7) with the bond price

(6)

formula in (3).

R (t ) = ρ (t , t + τ1 )′ ;…; ρ (t , t + τ1 )′ ∈ k × k Our approximation goes in two steps:

■ A. Approximate the stochastic differential equation (9) by the model:

()

dS t = () ( ) ( ) ( ( )) ( )

z t λ (t ) m t S t + 1 − m t S 0 dW1 t

A

() here for space considerations, but the main point is that the technique is

both very quick and accurate. Computationally, the method relies on a nu-

(10)

dz (t ) = β (1 − z (t )) dt + ε (t ) z (t ) dW2 (t ) merical solution of one Ricatti ordinary differential equation per swaption

A

where all parameters are time-dependent. with a direct solution of (10) by numerical inversion of Fourier transform

■ B. Approximate the stochastic differential eqaution (10) by the time-ho- as suggested in Andersen & Andreasen (2002), this technique is much faster

mogeneous model: and only marginally less accurate.

d S (t ) = z (t ) λ mS

(t ) + 1 − m

(

(t ) S (0) dW A (t )

1 ) Calibration

(11)

( )

d z (t ) = β 1 − z (t ) dt + ε z (t )dW2A (t )

We start by fixing κ1, ... , κk, the correlation structure for the forward rates

RR′, and a set of tenors τ1, ... , τk of the model. We further fix a time grid

where all parameters are constant. 0 = t0 < t1 < ... of expiries and a set of tenors {Tj} corresponding to the

Approximation

_ _ A essentially involves finding time-dependent parame- swaption smiles that we wish to calibrate the model to. We assume that

~ ~ ~

ters λ, m so that the diffusion in (9) is approximated by the diffusion in we have fitted parameters λ hj, m hj, ε hj of the model (4) for these expiries

(10), that is: (h) and tenors (j) of the calibration swaptions, as in table A.

2 We let the model (3) and (7) be parameterised by:

zλ 2 mS + (1 − m ) S (0) ≈ S X ′ η

2

λ (t , t + τi ) = λ hi , m (t , t + τi ) = mhi , ε (t ) = ε h

(12)

Equating levels in (12) at X(t) = Y(t) = 0 yields: for th – 1 < t ≤ th. We use approximation A and B to give us constant para-

~ ~ ~

1

2 meters λ hj, m hj, ε hj for each swaption. We now calibrate the model by boot-

λ (t ) = S X (t )′ Γ (t ) I F (0) I λ R

2 −1

(13) strapping, that is, we solve the optimisation problems:

S (0)

2

X = 0, Y = 0

( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2

Differentiating (12) with respect to Xi at X(t) = Y(t) = 0 yields: min γ λ ∑ λ hj − λ hj hj − m

+ γm∑ m hj + γ ε ∑ ε hj − ε hj

{λ hi , mhi , ε h }i =1,…,k j j j

(λ (t ) S (0) S ) 1 ∂ 2

2

(t ) X =Y = 0 m (t ) = S X (t )′ η (t ) sequentially for h = 1, 2, .... Here γl, γm, γε are weights for balancing the dif-

z (t ) ∂X i

Xi (14)

X = 0,Y = 0 ferent objectives against each other. Most often we calibrate the model in

a sequence where only one of the weights γl, γm, γε is non-zero at the time.

for i = 1, ... , k. Due to the form of η, the right-hand_side of (14) is inde- As an example of this, consider simultaneous calibration of a four-fac-

pendent of z(t), so (14) forms k linear equations in m. We solve these by tor model of the type specified in (3) and (7) to all the euro cap and swap-

regression: tion implied volatility smiles of 19 expiries ranging from six months to 20

2 years and eight tenors ranging from six months to 30 years. The implied

k

∂

∑ S X (t ) ∂ X z (t ) S X (t )′ η (t )

−1

volatility smiles are parameterised by the parameters in table A. We set:

i =1 X = 0,Y = 0 (κ1, κ 2 , κ 3 , κ 4 ) = (0.015, 0.15, 0.30,1.20)

i

i

m (t ) = (15)

(τ1, τ 2 , τ3 , τ 4 ) = (6m, 2 y,10 y,30 y )

k

λ (t ) S (0) ∑ S X i (t )

2 2

i =1

X = 0,Y = 0

and use a correlation matrix estimated for historical time-series data of for-

All quantities in (13) and (15) can be calculated in closed form using the ward rate curves.

zero-coupon bond price formula in (3). The resulting model parameters are shown in table B. We see that the

It should be noted that this approximation can be slightly refined by forward skew parameters, mi, are decreasing more sharply in tenor than

evaluating (13) and (15) along levels of X, Y corresponding to approxi- the corresponding ‘term’ skew parameters shown in table A. This is con-

mate expected levels of X, Y under the annuity measure of the swaption sistent with the findings in Piterbarg (2003). There does not appear to be

under consideration. a clear trend over time in any of the calibrated parameters. However, there

Approximation B involves finding constant parameters so that the model is more noise in the calibrated forward skew parameters than in the Piter-

(11) produces option prices that are close to those of (10) with parame- barg (2003) case. This is probably due to the fact that we make no attempts

ters given by (13) and (15). We use the methodology suggested by Piter- to smooth our calibrated parameters in the time dimension. The calibra-

barg (2005a-b). The exact details are quite complicated and are omitted tion takes about five seconds of computer time.

Risk welcomes the submission of technical articles on topics relevant to our technical editor makes a decision to reject or accept the submitted article. His deci-

readership. Core areas include market and credit risk measurement and man- sion is final.

agement, the pricing and hedging of derivatives and/or structured securities, and We also welcome the submission of brief communications. These are also

the theoretical modelling and empirical observation of markets and portfolios. peer-reviewed contributions to Risk but the process is less formal than for full-

This list is not an exhaustive one. length technical articles. Typically, brief communications address an extension

The most important publication criteria are originality, exclusivity and rele- or implementation issue arising from a full-length article that, while satisfying

vance – we attempt to strike a balance between these. Given that Risk techni- our originality, exclusivity and relevance requirements, does not deserve full-

cal articles are shorter than those in dedicated academic journals, clarity of length treatment.

exposition is another yardstick for publication. Once received by the technical Submissions should be sent to the technical team at technical@

editor and his team, submissions are logged, and checked against the criteria incisivemedia.com. The preferred format is MS Word, although Adobe PDFs are

above. Articles that fail to meet the criteria are rejected at this stage. acceptable. The maximum recommended length for articles is 3,500 words, and

Articles are then sent to one or more anonymous referees for peer review. Our for brief communications 1,000 words, with some allowance for charts and/or for-

referees are drawn from the research groups, risk management departments and mulas. We expect all articles and communications to contain references to previ-

trading desks of major financial institutions, in addition to academia. Many have ous literature. We reserve the right to cut accepted articles to satisfy production

already published articles in Risk. Depending on the feedback from referees, the considerations. Authors should allow four to eight weeks for the refereeing process.

Cutting edge l Interest rates

factor model

1.0

t λ1(t) λ2(t) λ3(t) λ4(t) m1(t) m2(t) m3(t) m4(t) ε(t)

0.5 0.2120 0.2452 0.1063 0.0907 0.74 0.47 –0.28 –0.44 1.22 0.8

1 0.2242 0.2198 0.1262 0.1017 0.82 0.32 –0.05 –0.56 0.97

0.6

2 0.2266 0.2038 0.1325 0.0992 0.92 0.33 –0.01 –0.74 0.95

3 0.2464 0.1869 0.1336 0.0873 0.89 0.30 0.01 –1.01 0.80 0.4

4 0.2602 0.1906 0.1276 0.1021 0.89 0.26 0.01 –0.84 0.82

5 0.2693 0.1664 0.1278 0.0784 0.89 0.22 0.05 –1.65 0.75 0.2

%

6 0.2954 0.1678 0.1246 0.0872 0.83 0.24 0.06 –1.10 0.86

0.0

7 0.2798 0.1490 0.1268 0.0805 0.87 0.26 0.08 –1.07 0.85 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

8 0.3064 0.1496 0.1185 0.0635 0.80 0.22 0.10 –1.48 0.85 –0.2

9 0.3078 0.1335 0.1207 0.0482 0.80 0.25 0.11 –1.84 0.84

10 0.3040 0.1183 0.1172 0.0410 0.81 0.25 0.13 –1.88 0.84 –0.4

11 0.2934 0.1162 0.1278 0.0416 0.82 0.26 0.13 –2.01 0.97 –0.6

12 0.2719 0.1148 0.1219 0.0602 0.87 0.26 0.16 –0.99 0.99

13 0.2541 0.0917 0.1276 0.0519 0.90 0.35 0.16 –1.01 1.02 –0.8

14 0.1891 0.0798 0.1236 0.0658 1.40 0.37 0.20 –0.50 1.04

15 0.1574 0.0529 0.1254 0.0707 1.83 0.70 0.20 –0.36 1.06 This figure shows the total calibration error in terms of the Black-

16 0.1671 0.1009 0.1410 0.0695 1.73 0.19 0.20 –1.42 0.94 Scholes volatility when calibrating a four-factor model to the full euro

17 0.1705 0.1013 0.1413 0.0734 1.77 0.35 0.14 –0.89 0.94 market. We depict the difference between the yield curve model and

18 0.1690 0.0893 0.1492 0.0623 1.97 0.45 0.12 –1.01 0.94 the target when we price caps and swaptions by simulation. 131,072

20 0.1147 0.0768 0.1554 0.0631 2.03 1.70 –0.11 0.39 0.94 simulations were used, making the simulation error roughly of the

order of 0.10% in terms of implied Black-Scholes volatility. Expiries

Note: this table reports the resulting parameters when calibrating a four- range from six months to 20 years, tenors range from six months to

factor model to the euro swaption and cap data of table A 30 years and strikes range from 5–95% Black-Scholes delta – all in

all 1,024 caplets and swaptions

separable HJM

0.8

Maturity LMM HJM

0.6 5y 2.12 1.14

10y 7.20 2.22

0.4 15y 15.19 3.33

0.2 20y 26.21 4.46

25y 40.27 5.53

0.0 30y 55.13 6.56

%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

–0.2

Note: CPU times in seconds for simulation of 5y, … , 30y vanilla interest

–0.4 rate swaps with monthly reset in a four-factor Libor market model and our

four-factor separable volatility structure HJM model

–0.6

–0.8

–1.0 4. We see that the total calibration error is within +/-0.40% in Black-Sc-

holes volatility terms in most of the range.

This figure shows the pure calibration error in terms of implied Black- In summary, a four-factor version of the model can simultaneously fit

Scholes volatility when calibrating a four-factor model to the full euro market prices of caps and swaptions for all strikes (5–95% delta), expiries

cap and swaption market. We depict the difference between the yield

curve model and the target when we price caps and swaptions under

(six months to 20 years), and tenors (six months to 30 years), within a tol-

our approximations A and B. Expiries range from six months to 20 erance of 0.4% in implied Black volatility terms. Moreover, the calibration

years, tenors from six months to 30 years and strikes from 5–95% in only takes about five seconds of computer time.

terms of Black-Scholes delta – all in all 1,024 caplets and swaptions

Monte Carlo simulation

Strictly speaking, stochastic differential equations of the type defined by

The error of such a calibration can be split in two. First, there is the error (3) and (7) can in some cases exhibit explosive behaviour. To avoid this

from the fact that a four-factor model will not be able to exactly match the problem, we follow Heath, Jarrow & Morton (1992) and simply replace f(t,

smiles of eight tenors. We show this error by pricing swaptions and caps t + τi) in (7) with:

for all the calibration expiries and tenors by use of the approximation A

and B, and comparing the resulting prices to those of the target model. The ( (

f (t , t + τi ) = max f (0, t + τi ) − c, min f (t , t + τi ) , f (0, t + τi ) + c )) (16)

strikes chosen correspond to 5–95% delta in Black-Scholes terms. In all, we

price 1,024 caplets and swaptions. We call this error ‘pure calibration error’ where c is some constant.

and it is shown in figure 3. We see that the pure calibration error is within Due to the fact that the natural domain for the stochastic volatility fac-

+/–0.25% in Black-Scholes volatility terms in most of the range. tor z is {z ≥ 0}, straightforward Euler discretisation of the stochastic dif-

What actually counts, however, is of course what the error is when the ferential equation for z is going to exhibit very poor convergence as we

model is simulated. We call this “total calibration error” and the result of decrease the time steps ∆t → 0. Instead, we prefer to use the following

pricing up all the calibration swaptions by simulation is shown in Figure (local) lognormal discretisation:

− 12 v 2 + vN (0,1)

z (t + ∆t ) = ze REFERENCES

_

where we choose z , v so that the lognormal approximation matches the

Andersen L and J Andreasen, 2002

two first conditional moments of z(th + 1) given z(th), that is: Volatile volatilities

( )

Risk December, pages 163–168

z = 1 + e −β∆t z (t ) − 1 Andreasen J, 2000

Turbo-charging the Cheyette model

ε 2

v 2 = ln 1 + z −2

(

2β

)

1 − e −β∆t +

ε2

β

( )( )

z (t ) − 1 e −β∆t − e −2β∆t

Working paper, Gen Re Securities

Babbs S, 1993

Generalised Vasicek models of the term structure

We combine this with standard Euler discretisation of X, Y. With typical Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 1, pages 49–62

Cheyette O, 1992

parameter values, accurate pricing can be obtained with monthly or quar- Markov representation of the Heath-Jarrow-Morton model

terly time stepping. Working paper, Barra

The strength of the separable volatility structure relative to the general Hagan P, D Kumar, A Lesniewski and D Woodward, 2002

HJM or LMM specification is the speed in simulation of the model. To il- Managing smile risk

Wilmott Magazine, July, pages 84–108

lustrate this, we perform simulation of vanilla swaps with monthly rate Heath D, R Jarrow and A Morton, 1992

reset in two models: an LMM with four factors and our separable model Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates: a new methodology for

also with four factors. The resulting computer times are reported in table contingent claims valuation

Econometrica 60, pages 77–106

C. We see that in the LMM the computational time increases roughly with

Heston S, 1993

the square of the simulation horizon whereas it is linear for the separable A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to

model. Table C and our experience indicate that one can obtain compu- bond and currency options

Review of Financial Studies 6, pages 327–344

tational savings of up to a factor 10 for longer-dated structures with the

Jamshidian F, 1991

separable model relative to the LMM. Bond and option evaluation in the Gaussian interest rate model

Research in Finance 9, pages 131–170

Finite difference solution Lewis A, 2000

Option valuation under stochastic volatility

For the one-factor model, k = 1, finite difference solution is an efficient al- Finance Press

ternative to Monte Carlo simulation. The associated pricing partial differ- Lipton A, 2002

ential equation can be written as: The vol smile problem

Risk February, pages 61–65

∂V

0= + Dx + Dy + Dz V Mitchell A and D Griffiths, 1980

∂t The finite difference method in partial differential equations

John Wiley, New York

r ∂ 1 ∂2

Dx = − + ( −κx + y ) + η2 2 Piterbarg V, 2003

3 ∂x 2 ∂x A stochastic volatility forward Libor model with a term structure of volatility smiles

( )

Working paper, Bank of America, London, available from www.ssrn.com

r ∂

Dy = − + η2 − 2κy Piterbarg V, 2005a

3 ∂y Smiling hybrids

Forthcoming in Risk

r ∂ 1 ∂2

Dz = − + β (1 − z ) + ε 2 z 2 Piterbarg V, 2005b

3 ∂z 2 ∂z Stochastic volatility model with time-dependent skew

Forthcoming in Applied Mathematical Finance

We use an alternating direction implicit scheme (see Mitchell & Grif- Ritchken P and L Sankarasubramaniam, 1993

fiths, 1980) that splits the solution over each time step into three steps: On finite state Markovian representations of the term structure

Working paper, Department of Finance, University of Southern California

1 1 2 1 1 Vasicek O, 1977

∆t − 2 Dx V t + 3 ∆t = ∆t + 2 Dx + Dy + Dz V (t + ∆t ) An equilibrium characterization of the term structure

Journal of Financial Economics 5, pages 177–188

1 1 1 1 2 1

∆t − 2 Dy V t + 3 ∆t = ∆t V t + 3 ∆t − 2 DyV (t + ∆t )

(17)

1 1 1 1 1 but this does not seem to be a problem in practice.

∆t − 2 Dz V (t ) = ∆t V t + 3 ∆t − 2 DzV (t + ∆t ) In summary, we have a scheme with the following properties:

■ Uniform von Neuman stability.

where V(t) is to be interpreted as a three-dimensional tensor of values at ■ Accuracy of O(∆t2 + ∆x2 + ∆y4 + ∆zp), p < 2.

time t. ■ Workload of O(∆t–1 × ∆x–1 × ∆y–q × ∆z–1), q > 1.

We use the standard three-point discretisation for Dx and Dz, but for In practice, a 30-year Bermuda swaption is accurately priced on a grid of

Dy we use a five-point discretisation for the first derivative. This gives high- dimension 50 × 100 × 10 × 15 (t × x × y × z) steps and this takes about

er accuracy in the y dimension, O(∆y4), and enables us to get away with three seconds of computer time.

relatively few y steps, say 10. The disadvantage of the five-point discreti-

sation is that the workload increases at a rate higher than the O(∆y–1) of Conclusion

a three-point scheme but we find that is worth it in this particular case. We have presented a class of stochastic volatility yield curve models with

Square-root processes such as (7b), with high volatility and low mean quick and accurate calibration and significantly quicker Monte Carlo sim-

reversion and therefore high probability of hitting z = 0 can be tricky to ulation than general HJM or Libor market models. A one-factor version of

solve numerically. Linear discretisation of the z axis according to the stan- the model can be implemented with a finite difference solution and can

dard deviation of z at maturity leads to very few points in the interval [0, thus be used as an alternative to the standard one-factor models for day-

1] relative to the number of points between one and the upper bound of to-day management of large portfolios of interest rate exotics. ■

z. Attempting to solve this problem by transforming the state variable in-

troduces infinite drift for the transformed variable at z = 0 and this is there- Jesper Andreasen is a principal in the fixed income quantitative

fore not a recommendable route. Instead we choose to discretise z according research group at Bank of America in London. Email:

to zj O(j2). This means that we get lower asymptotic accuracy than O(∆z2) jesper.andreasen@bankofamerica.com

- Notes on Stochastic Finance-Nicolas PrivautUploaded byziokoala
- Determinants of Option PricingUploaded bypriyeshbabber
- Commodity tradingUploaded byVivek Lingwal
- General FeedbackMN3113Uploaded byDuy Sơn
- Bond Valuation Written ReportUploaded byJesse John A. Corpuz
- All SlidesUploaded bySubhash Mohan
- FinancialDerivatives_063009Uploaded byBasim Basheer
- Numerical Methods for the Valuation of Financial Derivatives.pdfUploaded byMartin Martin Martin
- Comparison of Stock Markets.Uploaded byFaisal Khalil
- THE VALUATION OF BONDS AND BOND OPTIONS: SOME EMPIRICAL TESTSUploaded bythisistheend13
- 02b_risk_neutral_valuation_the_black-scholes_model_and_monte_carlo.pdfUploaded byJose David Ceferino
- SOA Exam MFE Flash Cards for UploadUploaded byRui Yu
- VolatilityDynamics_DNicolay_PrePrintUploaded byIlias Benyekhlef
- Inflation and Gold Part 3Uploaded byWalter Sobchak
- 19680525-OptionsUploaded byvinit_rini2000
- International Finance Group 10 DerivativesUploaded bySushil Gurav
- Monte Carlo Simulation for Data Volatility Analysis of Stock Prices in Islamic Finance for Malaysia Composite IndexUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- Euro Dollar Futures and Options HjmUploaded byLei Liang
- 1-Zucco.pptUploaded byRITEN
- Translation From Al-Mukhtar Lesson 2Uploaded byMohamed Ali Rauff
- assignment economics.docxUploaded byAnonymous cX3sTDH
- 109f05_2012Uploaded byBob
- exchange rate2.pdfUploaded bychatfieldlohr
- VIX SeminarUploaded bygoldtrader
- fmUploaded byhema281011
- eao97-04Uploaded byArun Victor Paulraj
- Hittingtime and PageRankUploaded byDaniel Musumeci
- QuigleyUploaded bybanyuajiyudha
- Paris Trading Max CathyUploaded byMax Chen
- Ch_03_revised.pptUploaded byZia Ahmad

- 5.3_and_5.4_trig_ratios_for_all_angles.pdfUploaded byabbey4623
- Co-Equalizers and Tensor Products for Idempotent SemiringsUploaded byRock Brentwood
- EJU Syllabus for Examination of MathematicsUploaded byEffencioga PY
- 604 ARMA QuestnsUploaded byOmotola Awojobi
- Ignite Tuition-WPS OfficeUploaded bySarkar Bapan
- Prony Method of IIR Filter DesignUploaded byKarim Shahbaz
- PCA 1Uploaded bygacon87
- Brachistochrone ProblemUploaded byshouvikchaudhuri
- Recursive[1]Uploaded byJestonie Eco
- Shell Energy BalancesUploaded bySaiful Bahri
- syllabus128aUploaded byjack
- Recurrence RelationsUploaded byhungkg
- EllipseUploaded byManas J. Aggarwal
- Homework 03 2017 Fall With SolutionUploaded byMd Klazly
- qm_lecture_notes.pdfUploaded bySimon Gikonyo
- law of sine and cosineUploaded bySherpork Lori
- Phasors and Complex Numbers in ACUploaded byRatoka Lekhema
- binomial_dist-2.pptUploaded byFarahKhan
- Homework Klein Gordan ProblemUploaded byRajeeb Kunwar
- Copy of Data AwalUploaded byAnonymous 8w9QEG
- p4-Classical Thin Airfoil TheoryUploaded byrevandifitro
- Chap 1 Intro to Opt and LPUploaded byAsim Khwaja
- alorithm basicsUploaded byankit pandey
- SimilarityAnalysis.pdfUploaded byAarthy
- ch05Uploaded byNg Heng Lim
- Probability & Prob. DistributionsUploaded byJinoy P Mathew
- 1Uploaded bybbteenager
- Notes On Functional Analysis By Rajendra BhatiaUploaded bymksingh
- fast fourier transformsUploaded byekichi_onizuka
- Cylindrical and Spherical CoordinatesUploaded bySankar Karuppaiah

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.